logo_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors like supporting single/multiple searches, category filtering, theme availability, and result contents, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether searches are case-sensitive. It adequately covers core functionality but misses operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, examples, format options, result details) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly, though every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and outputs. It explains what results include (component name, code, import instructions), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could better address error cases or limitations to be fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning category filtering and theme availability, which aren't directly tied to the documented parameters. It doesn't elaborate on parameter semantics like query formatting or format implications, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search and return logos') and resources ('logos in specified format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on component building, inspiration, and refinement rather than logo retrieval. It explicitly identifies the output formats (JSX, TSX, SVG) and search capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including specific triggers like '/logo' commands or requests to add company logos not in the local project. It offers clear examples of valid queries and distinguishes usage scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.